'Meat paradox' and moral decision making

[Alydael]

You are mistaken. You are an omnivore that chooses not to eat meat.

It is not immoral to mass produce animals for slaughter. Our society says it is acceptable to do this. If it is acceptable, then it is moral. A very small minority saying it isn't acceptable does not make a thing immoral. It makes the minority wrong. In time we may get to the point where as a society we decide to close the factories down. Happens all the time. Not that long ago the very thought of women voting was not acceptable. If you suggest that now you would be looked at like a vegan.

I said "the carnivores might disagree," so I already acknowledged that there is alternate view points. I am not an omnivore because I don't eat any meat at all and an omnivore would eat meat and plants. The designation is not based on what you can eat, but in what you actually do eat.

(Obviously this is my personal viewpoint, but) I just don't see how you can claim to value life and then turn around and mass produce "life" just to slaughter it in a meat factory. I would say the degradation of living things is "immoral" but that (like I said) is my viewpoint.

The rest of the world is free to view it as they see fit, that is their perrogative.

[ellieg]

I have 0 moral objections to eating meat.

[Freshouttajail]

Alright. So your argument about how nature should determine morality is that everything is natural. That's not really an argument against my claim that human morality can differ from what is natural. "Well, atom bombs are natural, because physics make it possible and the materials for it are all found in the Earth's crust by natural lifeforms" isn't useful for this discussion.

Murder is pretty damn natural. To form the complex society we have, we've required social constructs and moral norms that take us beyond our genetic basis. This has elevated our species beyond many of the constraints we had in nature. Human capacity for compassion of other lifeforms could extend to other animals like dogs, gaining us companions to add to our wellbeing. Now we live in a society where we can survive while extending such compassion onto lifeforms we once needed to kill and abuse for our survival. Freed from survival pressure, we can reevaluate those connections. I don't blame people making different choices because of that.

And none of the social constructs required to build our society implied to not eat meat or to feel bad for doing so. If anything, it helped get us this far.

[AcidicSyn]

I was talking about the idea of replacing animal farms in the future. There's a few ways:

1. Creatively using non-meat products to emulate meat tastes.
2. Cultured meat / cellular agriculture.
3. Far future matter synthesizers. Like from Star Trek.

As far as "broccoli-steak" that fits more into trying to emulate a meat concept. Although I understand that slicing a big broccoli and calling it a "steak" is rubbish.

Oh no I was thinking about what you were saying regarding the more sciency options and then started imagining some kind of a genetically modified broccoli head that was engineered to taste like steak.

[Caerule]

And none of the social constructs required to build our society implied to not eat meat or to feel bad for doing so. If anything, it helped get us this far.

You're not completely wrong, but that's not quite right either. We already live in a society where it is not alright to eat certain animals. A society where we extend our empathy beyond just humans, and shape our behavior towards animals in other relationships then consumer and food. Lots of people feed birds, keep pets, or have moral objections to eating certain animals, such as horses. These values too have shaped society. Our ability to redefine our bonds to these animals has brought more than just joy: It has aided humanity greatly through the breeding of dogs as companions, horses as beasts of burdens, and cats for whatever ().

Naturally, despite us redefining our relationship with certain animals, and having the ability to empathize with species beyond our own, this has not led to us ending the practice of eating meat. Just because you are able to empathize with something or someone, doesn't mean you do. And in particular, you do not do so if it significantly impacts your wellbeing or survival. For example, I like mice. They are adorable and interesting. And if they start eating the food I need to survive, I will kill the little bastards without doubt.

My point is, we were never in any position to redefine our relationship with the species we use as food to any real degree, because meat has always been a vital resource. Even if 50 years ago all animals on the planet suddenly had become sapient and fully capable of speech and emotion, most of Humanity would have continued to eat them to survive. Things are becoming different now though. Living without meat is increasingly becoming something you can survive doing without extreme difficulty. It remains a challenge, and has costs. But it looks like we are heading into a future where you can make the choice to get all your vital sustenance without relying on the flesh of living beings.

So, now is a good time to start asking the questions. To see if we want to redefine our relationships with the remaining species we use as food. The answer for everyone will be different. Mine is "It's not worth it to switch over to a new meat completely yet." Some never will. Some have already. All of those are valid choices. But I just can't respect people that go "I don't have a choice to make, because things have always been this way". Appeals to Nature are just an excuse to avoid thinking and choosing.

[Freshouttajail]

You're not completely wrong, but that's not quite right either. We already live in a society where it is not alright to eat certain animals. A society where we extend our empathy beyond just humans, and shape our behavior towards animals in other relationships then consumer and food. Lots of people feed birds, keep pets, or have moral objections to eating certain animals, such as horses. These values too have shaped society. Our ability to redefine our bonds to these animals has brought more than just joy: It has aided humanity greatly through the breeding of dogs as companions, horses as beasts of burdens, and cats for whatever ().

Naturally, despite us redefining our relationship with certain animals, and having the ability to empathize with species beyond our own, this has not led to us ending the practice of eating meat. Just because you are able to empathize with something or someone, doesn't mean you do. And in particular, you do not do so if it significantly impacts your wellbeing or survival. For example, I like mice. They are adorable and interesting. And if they start eating the food I need to survive, I will kill the little bastards without doubt.

My point is, we were never in any position to redefine our relationship with the species we use as food to any real degree, because meat has always been a vital resource. Even if 50 years ago all animals on the planet suddenly had become sapient and fully capable of speech and emotion, most of Humanity would have continued to eat them to survive. Things are becoming different now though. Living without meat is increasingly becoming something you can survive doing without extreme difficulty. It remains a challenge, and has costs. But it looks like we are heading into a future where you can make the choice to get all your vital sustenance without relying on the flesh of living beings.

So, now is a good time to start asking the questions. To see if we want to redefine our relationships with the remaining species we use as food. The answer for everyone will be different. Mine is "It's not worth it to switch over to a new meat completely yet." Some never will. Some have already. All of those are valid choices. But I just can't respect people that go "I don't have a choice to make, because things have always been this way". Appeals to Nature are just an excuse to avoid thinking and choosing.

That's true, but I think it all comes from the same place of respect. A horse can be used to pull that big thing farmer used (completely forgot what it'S called in english) and years later we can eat that same horse. Native american hunted and absolutely respected the animals they hunted, they were grateful for their gift to them (I say native american because it's an obvious example but a lot of hunters today have this very same feeling, just watch Meat Eater on Netflix if you don't really get what I mean). Sure a bond was created with our ancestors who started using dogs as pet because they were useful for more than their meat (I have no idea how cats ended up like that too, they seem rather useless, were they used to hunt rats in old times or something?) and like Mongols with their pet eagle, so fucking badass. What I mean by all that is that we all have a purpose in life, some things serve to feed us and we should be happy and grateful about it, not feel guilty.

[Techno-Druid]

That's true, but I think it all comes from the same place of respect. A horse can be used to pull that big thing farmer used (completely forgot what it'S called in english) and years later we can eat that same horse. Native american hunted and absolutely respected the animals they hunted, they were grateful for their gift to them (I say native american because it's an obvious example but a lot of hunters today have this very same feeling, just watch Meat Eater on Netflix if you don't really get what I mean). Sure a bond was created with our ancestors who started using dogs as pet because they were useful for more than their meat (I have no idea how cats ended up like that too, they seem rather useless, were they used to hunt rats in old times or something?)

Dogs were never actually domesticated for consumption. They're the descendents of a now extinct prehistoric subspecies of gray wolf that began scavenging off of the animal remains left behind by Paleolithic hunters. Over time the relationship evolved as proto-dogs could be used to hunt as well as alert and defend the tribe in case of dangerous animals like cave lions or hyenas.

Cats were domesticated when humans began agriculture. As crops attracted rodents, wildcats began to take advantage of the rodent surplus and moved in to various human settlements. Over time we developed a familiarity with them and began breeding them as companion pets.

[Freshouttajail]

Dogs were never actually domesticated for consumption. They're the descendents of a now extinct prehistoric subspecies of gray wolf that began scavenging off of the animal remains left behind by Paleolithic hunters. Over time the relationship evolved as proto-dogs could be used to hunt as well as alert and defend the tribe in case of dangerous animals like cave lions or hyenas.

Cats were domesticated when humans began agriculture. As crops attracted rodents, wildcats began to take advantage of the rodent surplus and began moving in to various human settlements. Over time we developed a familiarity with them and began breeding them as companion pets.

I never said dogs were domesticated for consumption, dunno where you got that.

Thanks for the history about cats, that's pretty cool. Explains why then seem to run around, do their own thing and ignore us as I assume farmers didn't actually follow their cats in the fields while they hunt rodents.

[Raelbo]

When we say one thing but do another, or hold inconsistent beliefs, psychologists call it cognitive dissonance.

Do you believe that eating meat is cognitive dissonance?

No, it isn't. But it can cause cognitive dissonance if the person is unable to find a way to resolve the conflicting values.

Cognitive dissonance is the result of being unable to resolve contradictory values. It's a very uncomfortable state to be in, so we find ways to resolve that dissonance, often by living in a state of denial about reality.

So, basically, people who eat meat don't live in a state of cognitive dissonance because we have found a way to rationalise our dietary choice by convincing ourselves that it's actually ok to eat meat. This is why so many people are triggered by holier-than-thou vegans, because if we are to believe them, it would force us to abandon whatever beliefs we hold that allow us to resolve our cognitive dissonance. No one likes being in a state of cognitive dissonance, so when said vegans' actions threaten to push us into such a state, we respond rather aggressively.

It's the same thing with cigarette smokers who expose their kids to levels of toxicity that would be unconscionable to any parent. Because they're so addicted to nicotine but still love their kids, their brain allows them to live in a state of incredible delusional denial about how much harm they're actually doing. Anyone who has ever tried to have a rational discussion with a smoker about being "considerate" will know exactly what I am talking about.

[Techno-Druid]

I never said dogs were domesticated for consumption, dunno where you got that.

I thought you were implying that humans started farming dogs for meat:

Sure a bond was created with our ancestors who started using dogs as pet because they were useful for more than their meat

Either way, not that big of a deal.

[ZazuuPriest]

When we say one thing but do another, or hold inconsistent beliefs, psychologists call it cognitive dissonance.

Do you believe that eating meat is cognitive dissonance?

Its pretty fucking easy to eat meat and not give a shit how it lived when it was alive. Its even easier when that meat is a steak

[Freshouttajail]

I thought you were implying that humans started farming dogs for meat:

Either way, not that big of a deal.

Oh I see, I meant that they saw dogs as more useful alive than as meals, I see how this could be confusing.

[Zantos]

What about animals like cats? Cats HAVE to eat meat to survive, they are obligate carnivores and cannot survive without it.

Humans Have to eat meat to survive as well. The only reason its remotely possible to survive now a days without meat is due to advances that have created a way to supplement the necessary vitamins and minerals a non meat eater would lack in order to survive.

As for the topic, there is no meat paradox. Just some guys who like to ignore the various laws and regulations being passed all the time to ensure the animals are treated as humanely as possible before their deaths. I don't eat meat that is made in overly cruel ways.

[justandulas]

If I wasn’t meant to eat animals, they wouldn’t taste so good and veggies so bland

[horbindr]

eating meat doesn't by definition involve animal suffering. in fact happy animals tend to taste better.

the only cognitive dissonance that exist comes from the fact that people nowadays don't raise/butcher animals themselves anymore, anyone who has grown on up a farm gets a natural understanding of what animals provide for us and learns to respect the whole process.

the only thing you should/could feel guilty about is knowingly choosing industrially raised animals when you have an alternative available, but if you are financially forced into buying the cheap meat i don't really think thats on the individual but more a politics level issue.

[Zogarth]

This kind of arguing is like saying that there is a cognitive dissonance between buying anything from pretty much anywhere, and not supporting child labor/borderline slave labor in poor countries as you are actively contributing to it through your consumption. Or saying there is a dissonance between being concerned about climate change, and doing more or less anything that uses electricity/water/gas etc. Sure, you can argue it, but it is a stupid argument and a waste of brain power to think about.

[Jotaux]

If I didn’t eat meat the animal would have never lived. Essentially by eating meat I am giving life to those animals I consume.

[AcidicSyn]

~Snipped that wall and my scissors are broken now~

Forgive me my little joke, I mean it in good fun.

For your first question and of course this is all just my own personal perspective on it; there is no "argument" in veganism but rather a principle. That principle being "Do the least harm possible". This applies at least to ethical and environmental vegans. I however am predominantly vegan for health reasons. So to answer your question; I wouldn't eat it because its still meat, and eating meat is unhealthy. Now, in that vein I am not going to cite studies or science supporting this as fact because others will simply strap on their blinders and rage on it, make their own claims, and dismiss any and all evidence that is in any way contrary to their own beliefs. I have no interest in that debate plus it would derail the thread topic, I can only speak for myself, and after facing obesity, cholesterol issues, and other health problems and having paleo, atkins, keto, <insert numerous other lifestyles here> (yes coupled with regular proper exercise) fail to resolve my problems I'm now a 6ft tall 200lb vegan with perfect blood tests in every single aspect and precisely zero nutritional deficiencies.

So given that this lifestyle is what has actually shown results for me it's the one I continue living by. (The ethical and environmental components honestly came later, almost as a side effect). By contrast one of my good friends lives his life on keto and it works perfectly for him.

I don't begrudge others their right to eat meat, precisely like you said; it is important that we separate the act of killing animals from animal abuse and I could not possibly agree more. This is why in my other responses my focus has typically be on how the meat is sourced, even for the poster that asked about their cats food. I don't care how many companies claim to be making vegan cat food that is good and healthy for them; as obligate carnivores, without the kind of observation that would cost far too much for the average joe, I would even venture to say that NOT feeding your cat meat would constitute animal abuse.

That friend I mentioned that lives his life according to the keto way of eating? He's a fine example of how I feel it's done right. He still eats predominantly vegetables, and eats lean meat with most of his meals. He rarely eats red meat and doesn't eat pork at all (well, that last bit he fudges up because lolBacon). The meat he does eat though? He does his research, he ensures his chickens are not coming from factories where male chickens are fed through grinders on birth via conveyor belt or suffocated in garbage bags (examples of cruelty), he will not eat veal or lamb but definitely enjoys steak and mutton and will check the sourcing on those as well. The only time he doesn't follow this is when the group of us all go out to eat somewhere like at a restaurant. At which point he will order whatever he wants because it's a treat and he's out with friends. He goes hunting for hogs and deer too, cleans the carcasses himself, and uses or sells everything he can (to the point of making this weird kind of fish bait he says is amazing out of the stomach contents and other intestines).

The above is obviously a massive amount of additional effort and I frequently praise him for it. He eats some kind of dead animal multiple times a day nearly every day of his life, he is incredibly healthy, active, courteous and conscientious. I deeply respect him for the lengths he goes through. The most ironic part is that he originally only did this because, in his words "The meat just tastes better this way and it's healthier for you". He started adding some stuff when he learned about what happens to male chickens, but he still predominantly does it because he is well and truly obsessed with the quality of the food he consumes.

Apologies for spending so long on that part of the response, I just wanted to make sure it was clear that eating meat (and thus killing animals) is in no way the thing I take issue with as a vegan. The factory farms, veal and lamb, smothering or feeding thousands of newborn male chicks into meat grinders, those practices are what I take issue with. As you said; the difference between simply raising and killing animals for food; and animal cruelty.

What's more, animal husbandry has, from an evolutionary perspective, made several species tremendously more "successful". It's perhaps strange to some to think of palatability as a fitness trait, but there is no denying that the numbers of cows, pigs, etc. would be far lower than they are now if humans were not breeding them; and that they would be far less widespread. Their average lifespan might have gone down, but that is only one characteristic of many to evaluate evolutionary success (certainly not the most prominent one, considering some of the most prolific animals on the planet are also fairly short-lived, individually).

We're at this part now. In particular the bolded bit. You're definitely right, their numbers would certainly be lower and that is the problem. They SHOULD be lower. Human greed pushed us to cut away enormous swathes of land time and time again for the reason of raising livestock in larger numbers to meet demand. Here is where the larger environmental argument comes into play when it comes to land usage, water consumption, and the impact of this on our atmosphere. I won't cite numbers as they're easily available (and you seem educated on the subject and so likely already know anyway). But again, this isn't a dig at animal husbandry, but rather animal agriculture as an industry in the state it exists today. This issue is what I genuinely hope lab grown/synthetic meat production will fight. The day will come where humanity can leave and colonize other planets but for the time being we're stuck on this one rock; and I think we're much closer technologically to being able to synthesize meat at a large enough scale to meet demand without perpetuating the damages the current animal agriculture industry causes than we are to building a colony on Titan or even a lunar base. Until leaving is an option at minimum, we need to do all that we can to keep this place alive.

Certainly, the animals that are most bothered by humans eating meat are, in fact, humans themselves - because we have a concept of life and death, and associated cultural constructs largely based around that concept. Animals most likely don't (though there is some doubt of that with some species, I absolutely grant that). That doesn't mean they're "worth less" or anything silly like that; it simply means that a sheep has no abstract conception of its own mortality, and is (as far as we know, anyway) incapable of even comprehending the existential complexities of a terminal existence. To practically all wild animals, killing or being killed are immutable facts of life that they are incapable of distinguishing in any meaningful way from other facts of life. They are base parameters around which their existence is fundamentally organized. For animals, really, the here-and-now is much more important than the future, because that is all they have real cognitive access to (indeed some anthropologists argue that it is precisely the capability of directed, non-instinctual forethought that marks the emergence of humans as 'something more than animals').

When you refer to a terminal existence, are you referring to a cow living at a pasture having no idea that it's there to eventually, one day, be eaten by it's caregivers? If so, you may be right. However, they do know what death is and they definitely fear it. In the case of cows and pigs at least, they may not understand the word slaughterhouse the way you and I do; but they are smart enough to recognize that others are lead into the small building over there and never come out, or come out in pieces or on a rack. In many cases where the slaughter house is actually in the same fenced area as the pasture, cows and pigs have been observed avoiding that building; they're not as stupid as we pretend they are. We now have evidence that supports cows feel pain and loss very similar to the way our domestic dogs do as well as other complex emotions. Sure, they don't fully grasp that they are food and will one day be killed and eaten. But they do know that others around them have been killed and they know it's us doing it when they see it. Does it matter that they lack the ability to connect the dots a week later when the farmer returns and leads another into the building? But I digress, this is one of those elements that are simply part of life and I agree; that does not mean we should stop killing them for food altogether. This is the part that comes with acceptance of the natural order and understanding of the food chain. A concept that, as you pointed out several times, the animals in the wild understand quite well, dare I say better than

You could say, in a way, that what matters most to animals is a happy life, and not a long one. Many animal lives are short, from our point of view (though others are also very long). What's important isn't that animals die, but how they've lived. That's why yes, I absolutely agree we should eliminate all cruelty in animal husbandry. But I also believe that killing animals for food is not in and of itself cruel.

I have never and will never say that the act of killing animals for food is in and of itself a cruel act; so we are agreed on this as well as the need to fight, with intent to eliminate, cruel practices within the industry. I would also add that this includes the ordered killings of other human beings investigating the industry by those connected to south american cattle ranching. Hell, the worst offenders by a wide margin in the industry are not even meat producers but eggs and dairy, wherein the animals suffering is intentionally prolonged for profit. To many of these animals the eventual death that comes at the end of their short lives filled with forced pregnancy, forced removal of offspring, mutilation, and other horrors is a blessing. The longhorn killed at 6 years old is lucky when compared to the dairy cow.

The argument remains, of course, that while animals are (probably) incapable of the grand abstractions that let us ponder our own existence, it is precisely that capacity that also allows us to transcend the "natural" order of things (whatever that might mean, whole other debate). We are capable of thriving without needing (or wanting) to kill animals (well most of them, verdict's out on things like bacteria, parasites, etc.). The question is whether it is a moral imperative that we SHOULD do so. Some argue that we are violating animal's rights of agency in killing them, presumably against their will (fair assumption, granted). However, we are also entered into a kind of implicit contract with several species, that has shaped their respective species' existence for considerable parts of history. What if we let all the dogs go free, for example. Their life spans would drop, their quality of life decline, their species be less populous and less widespread. What if we stopped eating pigs? Their population would decline dramatically, they would lead less healthy lives (if possibly longer ones), and for those pigs that were raised in adequate conditions their quality of life would also drop. Do we get to make THAT decision any more (or less) than we get to decide when they die? What about THOSE moral imperatives, to care for our animals, provide them food, shelter, health - things nature will never be able to provide in the same way? I grant you that the perversions of human-animal relations could probably be done away with - but you don't need to be radical and set them all free to stop things like dog fighting, dolphin shows, battery cages, and so on. You can do that and STILL keep animals for food.

Nothing wants to die, so anyone basing their argument around some violation of an animals rights of agency solely based on them being killed is being more than a little silly. Especially when there are scenarios like the one I mentioned above; the dairy cow where true violation of agency has taken place. The lion cares not for the agency of the gazelle, they need to eat and feed their pride. We too need to eat and feed our families; we don't need to do it with meat, but that is not the hill I've chosen to die on. I will not begrudge the wolf pack, another omnivore, from their choice to eat the more fatty and thus energy rich food source either. Though I will acknowledge that the wolf pack does not have the options humans do at the same time.

What if we let all dogs go? What I we let all pigs go? What if we never played with fire? What if barbie had a hand grenade? I am not the best audience for this kind of argument as I find them mostly pointless and wholly irrelevant. It's nothing more than cause and effect. I prefer to focus on solutions moving forward and a well thought out solution never includes simply reversing a decision made collectively by a species millions of years ago and expecting it to work. I've met those vegans too and they sound just as silly to me as the paleos who claim "Grok never ate potatoes". As foolish as those who claim all animals must be "set free" in order to stop the barbaric acts of cruelty you cited like dog fighting, dolphin shows, and battery cages. My dog would die in under 15 minutes were we to do something so completely stupid, and that's assuming he even stopped following me around after being "set free" (Shithead lives better than I do, free from what exactly? He knows how good he's got it.)

Now, I'm not directly arguing one way or another, except in that I am clearly against cruelty, against animals of any kind (humans included). But I do maintain that what exactly constitutes cruelty isn't clear-cut, and isn't simple. I also believe that the legacy of our species history is not easily extricated from the intertwined histories of the many other animals humans have been in contact - if not contract - with over the millennia of their existence. Whether or not eating animals is morally wrong is one debate; whether or not we have responsibilities to those animals that go beyond them being food is quite another. And both are connected with but not equal to the debate on cruelty.

Finally we reach something we actually disagree on (So much of what you said echos some of my own responses, including some in this thread that I was beginning to wonder if you had replied to the right person). I think what constitutes cruelty is not only incredibly clear, but obvious to the point of being black and white, requiring willful ignorance to miss in most cases (not suggesting you are ignorant by any means). I simply believe that there are militantly minded folks both vegan and non-vegan, who stretch or skew the obvious truths to better fit their narrative; which is a shame. The act of killing an animal for food is not cruel, EVEN if that means the animal suffers a bit in the process. For example; a hunter shoots a deer, but vital organs are missed and the deer runs off for several miles before finally bleeding to death. The animals death in and of itself is not cruel, but it can be cruel. Cruelty in this case is dependent on what the hunter does next. After tracking their kill, the hunter collects the carcass for harvest; this animal was not cruelly murdered and was instead simply part of the ebb and flow of energy that makes up the ecosystem. Now rewind back to the hunter arriving at the animal carcass. The hunter takes a saw out of their pack, removes the deer antlers, and leaves. NOW cruelty as taken place.

Note that I make no mention of the word "survival". I don't care if that hunter had the option of going into town and buying venison steaks and chose to hunt their food instead. Hunting, for the purpose of food, is not cruelty. The cattle rancher who slaughters cows to sell the meat and earn their living is not being cruel until they start slaughtering newborn calfs for veal (example).

The concept of cruelty being clear is however, where our disagreement both begins and ends. I've never made, and never will make, claims that eating animals period is morally wrong, nor have I ever made any statement that could be interpreted by even the most wild imagination as a suggestion that the morality of eating animal flesh is the same or equal to the debate on cruelty; on these two points we agree. On the subject of our responsibilities to those animals I would say we, as a species, absolutely do have some responsibility, if not outright obligation to not just them, but to all life on the planet. As the undisputed master species of planet earth, I believe we are the defacto caretakers of it and the other animals who share it with us environmentally speaking.

My original joke about text walls aside I do thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and opinions, and for engaging me in discussion in such a friendly and thought out way, that's rare here, and it was quite refreshing.

- - - Updated - - -

The irony is that without eating meat humanity would never have evolved to a point where we have the mental capability to question the morality of eating meat.

Check mate, vegans.

(Ignore everything above this lol the wall of death text is not meant for you XD)
You remind me of this short story. I think you'd enjoy it: Meat

[Morssoe]

Other than meat is mental illness.

[AcidicSyn]

No. I've learned to distinguish between animals I have relationships with (pets) and animals that I want to eat (food). I had chickens as pets when I was a kid. And I would eat chicken frequently. There's no cognitive dissonance.

It's the same thing as distinguishing between your mother and your girlfriend. I don't suffer cognitive consequences because I don't want to eat my mom.

I had pet chickens too as a kid. Then I came home from school and had chicken wings for dinner; went outside to play with my chickens after, my chickens were gone just my single duck left. I asked my grandma where my chickens were. She said they're in your belly sweetie.

I guarded the FUCK out of that duck for the rest of it's freakin life. I was like 8 years old; dick move grandma, dick move.